Attachment to Independent Case Review Report For CDRU # 6365 Case file # 95-252441.

Matenal Examiner: Malone (RO)

Remarks:

Case resulted in guilty plea, no transcript available.

CRM - 3240

INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson

Area(s) of Expertise: Hair and Fibers

Review commenced at: 9:30AM (Time), 11/08/01 (Date)

File #: 95-252441

Laboratory #{s): 21112067

Examiner(s) & Symbols

Reviewed Not Reviewed Reviewed Not Reviewed RQ xO Oo a Oo UF O xO Oo O D Oo o O Materials Reviewed Trial testimony transcript(s) of: not available Testimony Date(s): Pages: Laboratory Repori(s): Laboratory Number: 21112067 Date: Nov 26, 1982 Laboratory Number: Date: Laboratory Number: Date: Examiner Bench Notes of: RQ and unknown technician

Laboratory Number; 2111067

CRM - 3241

Co Was any other material reviewed? XO Yes No

If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: §submiting agency letter dated 11-8-82

Results of Review

File#: 95-25244] Itern or Specimen # Reviewed: Q1-Q45, K1-K6

Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on

: additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

1} Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of ihe original examination(s)? OYes ONo XO Unable to Determine

2) Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory report(s) supported and adequately documented in

the bench notes? 0 Yes XONo © Unable to Determine

Review of Teshmony:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on

additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

XO Transcript not available.

3) Testimony consistent with the laboratory report(s)? O¥Yes oNo OO Unable to Determine

4) Testimony consistent with the bench notes? OYes GNo = O Unable to Determine

5} Testimony within bounds of exammer’s expertise? GOYes No Unable to Determine

Page 2 of 3

Initials: mh

. | Comments

{Set forth by above question #, if applicable, Use “Additional Comments” Sheet, if needed)

File #: 95-25244]

#1; With microscopic hair comparison, one cannot determine from the notes that the examination was conducted

in an appropriate manner.

#2: Documentation is poor. The notes are not dated or initialed and are in pencil instead of ink. Abbreviations

are used that are difficult to interpret. Some of the hair recovered from the Q items are marked as "NSFC". Presumably, this meaus "Not Suitable for Comparison”, but there is no documentation as to why these hair are

unsuitable, The technician does not document the recovery of hair from any of the Q items as stated in the report.

Review completed at: 10:30AM (Time), 11/08/01 (Date) Total time spent conducting review {to nearest 1/4 hour): 0.50 hr.

I hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review are fully documented on this report consisting of a total o 3

11/08/2061

(Signature} (Date)

Page 3 of 3

Initials: Sue